Opinion
1:12-cv—00943-LJO-SKO-HC
01-22-2013
RENE J. ZAMORA, Petitioner, v. M. D. BITER, Warden, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOC. 15)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. Pending before the Court is Petitioner's motion for injunctive relief, which was part and parcel of a document docketed as a motion for an extension of time to file a traverse. The motion was filed on November 2, 2012 (doc. 15 at 3).
I. Motion for Injunctive Relief
In the motion, Petitioner sought an extension of time to file his traverse because of difficulties Petitioner alleged he had encountered in connection with his efforts to conduct legal research in the prison law library. In connection with his complaints concerning access to, and the contents of, the prison law library, Petitioner sought an order directing the warden of his custodial institution to comply with requirements set forth in various state regulations. (Doc. 15 at 3.) Petitioner also sought an order directing the warden to update the "C.D. ROM" in the library that contained case authority. (Id.) The portion of the request concerning an extension of time was granted by separate order, and Petitioner subsequently filed his traverse on December 20, 2012.
After reading the request in its entirety, the Court concludes that it is clear that Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement.
Relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 extends to a prisoner who shows that the custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the legality or duration of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)); Advisory Committee Note to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (Habeas Rules), 1976 Adoption. In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at 574; Advisory Committee Note to Habeas Rule 1, 1976 adoption.
Petitioner seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, and not the legality or duration of his confinement; thus, these particular claims are cognizable in a civil rights action rather than a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, it will be recommended that the request for injunctive relief be denied.
II. Recommendation
In accordance with the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request for injunctive relief be DENIED.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE